Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

So, you think everyone is using what they have at their "disposal today... to make a radical and progressive evolution in Aikido?"

I don't see that at all, and I agree with Corky on the numbers being few. I'd hazard to guess the numbers are in the hundreds.

Quote:

Are you trying to get all people who practice Aikido to practice the same way?

Absolutely not. We're actually seeing a trend that's slowly growing with practice that's even more diversified - while still digging deeper to work with and refine the essence. And that's exactly the idea of "third wave."

We're actually seeing a trend that's slowly growing with practice that's even more diversified - while still digging deeper to work with and refine the essence. And that's exactly the idea of "third wave."

This observation is done from a few hundred trees in the forest of over a million and a half?

Shu Ha Ri has no meaning outside a system of defined forms.
First, obey the form, then break the form and then abandon the form.

If there is a defined form it must be practiced and learned so as to be effective -- if not -- it has zero martial value -- either in practical or educational terms.

I think the flaw in much aikido training lies here, actually -- at least when put in these terms.

The forms must be made to work, or they serve no purpose. Freeform shiai would be preferable -- but also provoke "threat reaction" and lose the essence of difference at the heart of aikido -- striving to eliminate of the very possibility of conflict. Solo work is important -- I do not deny -- my best period of personal advancement was two naval deployments where I did daily canon taijutsu, aiki taiso, empty hand shadowboxing waza, and weapons kata all by my lonesome.

The forms encode a -- there's that word again -- "perspective" of the reality of the action involved, which has many if not endless variations. I analogize it to a slice out of the whole apple -- the slice is informative about how the apple is -- but also fixed and partial in view in a way the whole is not, because it is continuous. Stacking slices over and and over makes a fair approximation of the whole, but a stack of apple slices is also not the reality of the apple.

My main criticism of the "internal-first" crowd is that you cannot see the inside of the apple without cutting it open, so what they are doing is not really as divorced from form as they would like to think. It is a different approach to form, clearly -- but not apart from the paradigm of "form-first." It just isn't the forms of the canon.

Where the canon determines its forms by obviously resulting overt actions -- the internal perspective is focusing on the form of the operative states of the body that happens to result in those actions. From one perspective they have a point. Their approach is operatively prior to what results. It is also true that results-oriented training tempts one to expedients that APPEAR similar in result -- but are not really. But it is also true that starting with a resulting action one can work into an awareness of -- and immediate demonstration -- of what did-- or did not -- just make that result occur -- the right ways and the wrong ways (and the just plain no-ways).

I don't fault some of the forms they are advocating -- pole/spear shaking is very good, as are lot of other things, and the refocusing on the Aiki taiso needs to happen anyway and more rigorously, and as we are. "Intent" as a paradigm though, is a tad abstruse as a concept, if you ask me. "Using stress" or "preparatory stress" developed in the structure focuses on the same basic perception they are seeming to get at -- or a more available "perspective": for most students (IMO).

The evolution of Aikido started when Osensei evolved his martial art into his Aikido that he passed on to his students to make it their own and to pass on their Aikido. It continues today on this personal level.

The evolution of aikido started long before M Ueshiba, and what was "passed on" varied greatly - in both depth and substance. And even the name "aikido" as used by Ueshiba, the Ueshiba family, and Aikikai, didn't come along until after WWII, and occurred as the results of a confluence of nations, and quickly formulated and packaged as part of the Japanese education system. The aikido that was promoted to the world was mostly the results of his son, K. Ueshiba - who should absolutely be applauded for his contributions. He essentially did what Starbucks did, on a wider scale, by introducing the world to a deeper level of coffee enjoyment and culture than percolated canned, robusta-bean Folgers. That in and of itself is pretty huge.

And with aikido, as with coffee, there was also a smaller, more authentic current of culture, methods and practices. And we're entering a period where that current is becoming wider and more accessible. And other, previously small and even hidden - and even previously unavailable - currents, are flowing into it and enriching it.

And with aikido, as with coffee, there was also a smaller, more authentic current of culture, methods and practices. And we're entering a period where that current is becoming wider and more accessible. And other, previously small and even hidden - and even previously unavailable - currents, are flowing into it and enriching it.

Please compare the water quality of the Mississippi at its source, in Minnesota, to its mouth, in Louisiana. "Wider," and "more accessible" could mean better, but could also mean contaminated or diluted beyond all recognition.

Generally speaking, there's an inherent conflict between high volume production (of coffee, budoka, or anything else) and high quality.

Please compare the water quality of the Mississippi at its source, in Minnesota, to its mouth, in Louisiana. "Wider," and "more accessible" could mean better, but could also mean contaminated or diluted beyond all recognition.

Generally speaking, there's an inherent conflict between high volume production (of coffee, budoka, or anything else) and high quality.

HEY!

Hey, now!

Let's not be dissing Big Muddy!!

Plus, as someone once observed -- quantity has a quality all its own ...

In fairness, those are some pretty significant trees that were cited...not just any old sapling.

Quote:

Dan Richards wrote:

Seishiro Endo stated: ...

Since Endō sensei is one of those significant trees being cited in this thread I wonder how well you know him? Citing his article about shu ha ri in the context of this thread at least seems to indicate that you are not that familiar with his thoughts and his teaching?
This is my impression from practicing with him and talking to him.

Quote:

In a recent interview with Yoko Okamoto she stated:

And again: How familiar are you with the teaching of Okamoto sensei? How do you understand her phrases in the interview: " ... without losing the important aspects of our art ...", "... without losing the essence ..." and "... it must retain some discipline and an intense dedication to training ..."? Someone I know helped her building her dōjō in Kyōto. And as one of the top students of Christian Tissier and Yasuno sensei, she is linked to the context I am familiar with. I was perplexed when I saw her being cited in this thread.

It is my impression that neither Endō sensei nor Okamoto sensei can be considered supporters of what you call "Third Wave Aikido". I think you simply misunderstand the intention of at least those two "signifant trees".

Quote:

There is also the graph from Google Trends on Aikido ...

In which way does google trends say anything - not only anything meaningfull but anything at all - about the transmission of aikidō?
Established lines of tradition don't need google at all. (Endō sensei mostly communicates via fax ... ) And a newbie looking for a dōjō in town needs "aikido + XY". Which is not and will never be covered in the graph because the number of the requests is too small.

I have to admitt, I don't know your situation and I don't really understand the intention of this thread. But could it be that you struggle with a situation in which qualified teachers have more and more left the reliable structures of clear lines of tradition - i.e. the hierarchical structures ... - and are now teaching mostly independent on their own?

Starbucks standardized it's product. And tried to be able to provide a vast quantity of this standardized product.

Second dōshu did neither.

He only provided a platform that made it possible for completely different individuals to stay together. So he standardized only his own aikidō in a certain way. Sohe established a kind of consensus of what to teach during certain classes at hombu. But there were also the classes that had the special flavour of the particular teacher. And a lot of teachers had their own dōjō where they taught their own way. Sugino, Tada, Yamaguchi, Watanabe, Nishio, Hikitsuchi, Saito, (and later then Endō) come to my mind, because I am connected in one way or another to these teachers. No standardisation. They went completely their own way. - With nidai dōshu as connecting link.

He (respectively hombu) did only send 1 person to every country. And hombu affiliated only 1 organization per country. Until year 2000 there was only one teacher in Germany, who could give you a gradution of the aikikai. Same in France, with not one teacher but one commitee. The shihan / shibu system of the aikikai is clearly different from the network of branches of Starbucks. Even now, when there are more then only one shihan inour country.

The aim of this discussion, and the idea of Third Wave Aikido, is the moving away from the Folgers and Starbucks level of Aikido practice and move into a level of quality we're seeing arise in other industries that are using the highest quality principles, practices, methods, technologies, and communication to further the overall level of experience for everyone involved.

There are some highly qualified teachers operating worldwide.
Go to one of this teachers and study intensively..

I watch a lot of aikido videos on youtube. There are some I like and some I don't but I don't think that indicates whether what I'm watching is good or bad aikido. I understand the desire to make aikido something better than average but being such a varied art I don't think there will ever be a consensus to what good aikido is.

I try my best, and admittedly I'm not always successful, to not worry about how other dojos and organizations train. I focus on making my aikido the best it can be for me. I cross train in other arts and sometimes that works it's way into aikido. Maybe that means my aikido is evolving away from "Folgers" aikido or maybe it means I'm doing something that's not really aikido.

Keep in mind my perspective is coming from someone who has only trained in an independent dojo. I've never been involved with any large aikido organizations so maybe it's a little easier for me to just train and not really worry about the state of aikido across the world.

For the past ten years I have been developing a teaching model that only trains the elemental movements of aikido so that they may be combined into compounds that are more in alignment with the energy being expressed by uke in the moment of the attack. I have not taught a technique (as defined in the aikido world) in over ten years, yet my students have attained a higher level of understanding of the principles of aiki within a year or two than I had come to understand in ten to twenty years of training in the technique emulation model.

Techniques as usually trained in todays aikido, represent a selection of techniques the founder considered as important for training the body in a special way.
Saito Sensei or others found a teaching model that made it easier to understand how the basis should be developed, so that training stept by step leads to more understanding and to a well trained body. On such a base you can come some day to an understanding what "takemusu aiki" means.

The Aikido of most students I've seen, who were tought in models that rely on "principles", was missing a "core" and their technical skills had no foundation, their understanding of Aikido was limited.

I have to admitt, I don't know your situation and I don't really understand the intention of this thread. But could it be that you struggle with a situation in which qualified teachers have more and more left the reliable structures of clear lines of tradition - i.e. the hierarchical structures ... - and are now teaching mostly independent on their own?

Hi Carsten, rather than struggling, I actually find it exciting that more teachers are leaving political structures within aikido, and striking out on their own more independently. I agree that these - and other - arts are passed down through lineages of people. And even during it's time, the hierarchical structure of Aikikai and other large organizations certainly helped to promote and spread aikido to the world. And aikido - as a progressive and living art - has passed through that stage of evolution.

In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality.

Do you know of any other kind of art endeavor - such as music, painting, cooking, etc. - that requires people to kowtow (1. act in an excessively subservient manner.) to a political organization, teachers, technical form, and ranking structure?

There are quite a few people in the world now who have trained 25+ years - many with direct students of M. Ueshiba. The last generations of direct students have been passing away in recent years.

More and more, there are qualified people teaching and training independently, with little interest in politics and ranking. These people are free to explore, refine, and reinvent pedagogical and training methods. These people are often open and sharing freely with others. They're also incorporating and experimenting with new technologies and communication.

I'm not putting out - nor am I hearing from others who are teaching, discovering, and exploring independently - any kind of anti-Folgers or anti- Starbucks sentiments. There is nothing "anti-establishment" about this.

"Third wave" coffee is not anti-establishment. In fact, they're thankful for the market, resources, and technologies that allows them to develop, prosper, and even exist. And they all have diversified and highly individual expressions that revolve around certain common core principles.

In 2008, Jonathan Gold of the LA Weekly defined third wave coffee:

Quote:

The first wave of American coffee culture was probably the 19th-century surge that put Folgers on every table, and the second was the proliferation, starting in the 1960s at Peet's and moving smartly through the Starbucks grande decaf latte, of espresso drinks and regionally labeled coffee. We are now in the third wave of coffee connoisseurship, where beans are sourced from farms instead of countries, roasting is about bringing out rather than incinerating the unique characteristics of each bean, and the flavor is clean and hard and pure.

There are pockets of aikido and practitioners that we could call "third wave aikido" who are doing exactly that. It's the idea of taking newer technologies and levels of experience, and really taking it back to "old school." Another way to look at it would be something along the lines of a return to "pre-industrial martial arts."

Shu Ha Ri has no meaning outside a system of defined forms.
First, obey the form, then break the form and then abandon the form.

If there is a defined form it must be practiced and learned so as to be effective -- if not -- it has zero martial value -- either in practical or educational terms.

I think the flaw in much aikido training lies here, actually -- at least when put in these terms.

The forms must be made to work, or they serve no purpose. Freeform shiai would be preferable -- but also provoke "threat reaction" and lose the essence of difference at the heart of aikido -- striving to eliminate of the very possibility of conflict. Solo work is important -- I do not deny -- my best period of personal advancement was two naval deployments where I did daily canon taijutsu, aiki taiso, empty hand shadowboxing waza, and weapons kata all by my lonesome.

The forms encode a -- there's that word again -- "perspective" of the reality of the action involved, which has many if not endless variations. I analogize it to a slice out of the whole apple -- the slice is informative about how the apple is -- but also fixed and partial in view in a way the whole is not, because it is continuous. Stacking slices over and and over makes a fair approximation of the whole, but a stack of apple slices is also not the reality of the apple.

My main criticism of the "internal-first" crowd is that you cannot see the inside of the apple without cutting it open, so what they are doing is not really as divorced from form as they would like to think. It is a different approach to form, clearly -- but not apart from the paradigm of "form-first." It just isn't the forms of the canon.

Where the canon determines its forms by obviously resulting overt actions -- the internal perspective is focusing on the form of the operative states of the body that happens to result in those actions. From one perspective they have a point. Their approach is operatively prior to what results. It is also true that results-oriented training tempts one to expedients that APPEAR similar in result -- but are not really. But it is also true that starting with a resulting action one can work into an awareness of -- and immediate demonstration -- of what did-- or did not -- just make that result occur -- the right ways and the wrong ways (and the just plain no-ways).

I don't fault some of the forms they are advocating -- pole/spear shaking is very good, as are lot of other things, and the refocusing on the Aiki taiso needs to happen anyway and more rigorously, and as we are. "Intent" as a paradigm though, is a tad abstruse as a concept, if you ask me. "Using stress" or "preparatory stress" developed in the structure focuses on the same basic perception they are seeming to get at -- or a more available "perspective": for most students (IMO).

I agree 100% with you, Erick.

There's a recent translation by Chris Li, Hakaru Mori on the Aiki of Tenouchi. It was interesting to read this, and have reaffirmed how I've been approaching teaching recently, by separately but concurrently training Aiki/IP and Chin Na.

From the article:

Quote:

In order to apply Aiki and execute Aiki techniques, the strength, technical points and other essentials required for joint techniques are not necessary requirements. You could even say that they are an impediment.

In order to apply Aiki and draw out the opponent's instinctive unconscious movement you must not grasp the opponent. You must not put power into the opponent. At least, you must not allow the opponent to feel as if power is being brought to bear.

In other words, the fundamental principles behind Aiki techniques and joint techniques are completely different, stated extremely one could even say that their technical principles are diametrically opposed. Accordingly, however much one trains in joint techniques, that alone will absolutely not enable one to accomplish Aiki techniques.

Of course, the reverse is also true, that however much one trains in Aiki techniques, it is absolutely impossible to achieve mastery of correct and effective joint techniques.

Therefore, it can be said that in order to master Aiki and Aiki techniques, those training must learn joint techniques in parallel with Aiki techniques before they become tainted and strangled by the technical principles of learning joint techniques alone. At each practice, switching between the technical principles of both must occur not only intellectually, but also naturally and smoothly with the body.

If one trains this way repeatedly, in the end both sets of technical principles will become fused in the body, and they will become able to freely repeat the natural techniques of Aiki-jujutsu.

Do you know of any other kind of art endeavor - such as music, painting, cooking, etc. - that requires people to kowtow (1. act in an excessively subservient manner.) to a political organization, teachers, technical form, and ranking structure?

Yes, all of them.

You can cook whatever you want in your own kitchen, but if you want someone to actually pay you that Culinary Institute training will come in pretty handy.

Credentials matter in any endeavor large enough to have participants who don't personally know each other. And as soon as you give someone power to issue credentials -- formally or informally -- you introduce politics, teachers, and all the rest.

Thank you, Katherine, as I didn't explain my meaning fully. I meant during the lifetime pursuit of the art. Of course, there is often the initial intensive educational period and structured classes taken by students. But after that period, the artist is then usually free for the rest of their lives to independently pursue and explore their art and craft as they wish. Of course they may have various teachers and guides along the way, but nothing that mirrors the kinds of "rising in the ranks" we see in some martial arts - which are structured as a sort of pseudo-military organization.

So, I'll rephrase that:

Do you know of any other kind of art endeavor - such as music, painting, cooking, etc. - that requires people to kowtow (1. act in an excessively subservient manner.) to a political organization, teachers, technical form, and ranking structure - throughout the entire lifetime of the artist?

It may or may not be worth going to the Culinary Institute. Anthony Bourdain and David Chang did, along with many others. But the important thing is, after they received their training and degree, they were free from any further alignment or politics with their particular institute.

And there are many chefs that received their training in the field, rather than at an institution. In fact, Bourdain now says he prefers, "hard-working and devoted but unlearned Ecuadorians to college graduates."

Do you know of any other kind of art endeavor - such as music, painting, cooking, etc. - that requires people to kowtow (1. act in an excessively subservient manner.) to a political organization, teachers, technical form, and ranking structure - throughout the entire lifetime of the artist?

Aikido doesn't either, though. My goal in training is to get better. I can do that without kowtowing. Sure, I might have to Kowtow to get a rank in a particular organisation, but that isn't my goal.

Perhaps a better question would be "do you know of any other kind of art endeavor that has practitioners who are so focused on obtaining arbitrary 'ranks' and are happy to kowtow in order to do it."

1. What do we have at our disposal today that we can use to make a radical and progressive evolution in Aikido?

Given the widely diverse forms of Aikido practiced today, can you make a convincing case that "a radical and progressive evolution in Aikido" is necessary? The network model of Aikido's structure allows for constantly evolving forms of "methods, practices organizations, etc." to come into being and flourish or wither.

Quote:

Dan Richards wrote:

2. What, within the current state of Aikido - including methods, practices, organizations, etc., is not working? Let's look at the crap and get rid of it.

When I first read this statement I was immediately struck by the thought that here comes another savior of Aikido whose going to show us all the one true way. But after reading some of your subsequent posts it seems that I may have rushed to judgement. I'm always leery when someone seeks to form a group of like minded thinkers and decide, based on their ideas, to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

I think that the main flaw with your proposal is that it seems to require viewing Aikido as a monolithic entity; something that Aikido has long since evolved away from.